DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 01/08/2026.
3. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-10 are under examination on the merits. Claim 1 is amended.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “wherein the oxide powder comprises 60% by mass or more of the crystal phase, based on the mass of the whole oxide powder”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, applicant regards as those which will facilitate “60% by mass or more” requisite to identifying the upper range of the crystal phase, since the range limitation of the three crystal phases of oxide powder is already recited in claim 1, thus claim 2 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope and the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim from the application disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
9. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 USC 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant is required to cancel the claim, or amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim in independent form. Claim 3, as written, depends on claim 1, which recites “the
oxide powder comprises 30% by mass or less of a crystal phase of low-temperature
cristobalite”. However, claim 1 recites the oxide powder comprises 5 to 20% by mass of a
the crystal phase of low-temperature cristobalite comprising Si or Si and at least either one of Ca and Al, thus claim 3 as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
11. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US Pat. No. 5,096,857, hereinafter “’857”) in view of Chi-Tang Li (US Pat. No. 4,073,655, hereinafter “’655”) as further evidenced by Okabe et al. (JP2019-019222 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’222”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘857 teaches a crystalline composition having an X-ray diffraction pattern essentially the same as the high cristobalite form of silica comprising SiO2, Al2O3 and a metal oxide (MexO) in which Me is selected from Na, Ca, Sr and mixtures thereof ( Abstract, lines 1-4; Col. 1, lines 5-9). ‘847 teaches a crystalline composition having an X-ray diffraction pattern essentially the same as the high cristobalite form of silica consisting essentially by mole % of 90-98% SiO2, 2-12% Al2O3 and 0.5-8% of a metal oxide (MexO) in which Me is selected from Na, Ca, Sr and mixtures thereof in which composition the ratio of Mex O to Al2O3 is 0.2 to 0.9 (Col. 3, lines 20-27). ‘875 teaches the oxide powder comprises a crystal phase of high-temperature-cristobalite (β-phase), a crystal phase of low-temperature cristobalite (α-phase), and other crystal phase (am-phase) (Cols., 7-8; Table II, Examples 16, 23). ‘857 does not expressly teach the oxide powder comprises 45 to 70% by mass or more of a crystal phase of high-temperature cristobalite comprising Ca, Al and Si, 5 to 20% by mass of a crystal phase of low-temperature cristobalite comprising Si or Si and at least either one of Ca and Al and 2 to 14% by mass of other crystal phases based on the mass of the whole oxide powder.
PNG
media_image1.png
122
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, ‘655 teaches a thermally stable high β-cristobalite glass-ceramics suitable for making articles such as refractory linings for ovens, furnaces, and the like and which do not undergo transition to the low α-cristobalite crystal phases upon cooling of the ceramic to ambient temperature (Abstract, lines 1-5). ‘655 teaches best results are obtained when the CaO/MxO molar ratio is from 4:1 to 1:1 and the amount of SiO2 present is such that n is a positive number of from about 22 to about 29 (Col. 6, lines 41-44). When converted to glass-ceramics by the heat-treatments set forth in Table C, the stabilized high-cristobalite products have the phase-assemblages set forth in Table C (Col. 6, lines 45-49, see the Ex. No, 21 with three phases) with benefit of providing a refractory brick suitable for use in a furnace at a temperature of up to about 1250° C and which consists predominantly, in fact at least about 70% and preferably at least about 90% or more, of stabilized high-cristobalite solid solution and most preferably consists substantially completely of stabilized high-cristobalite solid solution, can be thermally in situ crystallized from a thermally crystallized glass having the composition CaO- Al2O3-nSiO2 wherein the molar ratio of CaO to Al2O3 is 1 and n is a number from about 21 to about 29 (Col. 2, lines 33-66).
PNG
media_image2.png
156
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In an analogous art of the oxide powder comprising cristobalite, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the SiO2, Al2O3 and a metal oxide (MexO) ratio by ‘857, so as to include the oxide powder comprises 45 to 70% by mass or more of a crystal phase of high-temperature cristobalite comprising Ca, Al and Si, 5 to 20% by mass of a crystal phase of low-temperature cristobalite comprising Si or Si and at least either one of Ca and Al and 2 to 14% by mass of other crystal phases based on the mass of the whole oxide powder as taught by ‘655, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a refractory brick suitable for use in a furnace at a temperature of up to about 1250° C and which consists predominantly, in fact at least about 70% and preferably at least about 90% or more, of stabilized high-cristobalite solid solution and most preferably consists substantially completely of stabilized high-cristobalite solid solution, can be thermally in situ crystallized from a thermally crystallized glass having the composition CaO- Al2O3-nSiO2 wherein the molar ratio of CaO to Al2O3 is 1 and n is a number from about 21 to about 29 as suggested by ’655 (Col. 2, lines 33-66).
Regarding claim 2: The disclosure of ‘857 in view of ‘655 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘655 teaches the oxide powder, wherein the oxide powder comprises 60% by mass or more of the crystal phase, based on the mass of the whole oxide powder as set forth in Table C (Col. 6, lines 45-49, see the Ex. No, 21 with three phases)
PNG
media_image2.png
156
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3: The disclosure of ‘857 in view of ‘655 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ’655 teaches the oxide powder, wherein the oxide powder comprises 30% by mass or less of a crystal phase of low-temperature
cristobalite comprising Si or Si and at least either one of Ca and Al, based on the mass of the
whole oxide powder as set forth in Table C above (Col. 6, lines 45-49, see the Ex. No, 21 with three phases).
Regarding claim 4: The disclosure of ‘857 in view of ‘655 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘857 teaches the oxide powder (Col. 1, lines 5-10), wherein an average particle diameter of the oxide powder is 6.9 µm (Col. 7, lines 52-59).
Regarding claim 5: The disclosure of ‘857 in view of ‘655 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘857 teaches the oxide powder (Col. 1, lines 5-10), wherein a content of halogen in the oxide powder is 0.1% by mass or less (i.e., 0.0 % by mass), based on the mass of the whole oxide powder (Col. 8, lines 24-33).
Regarding claim 6: The disclosure of ‘857 in view of ‘655 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘857 discloses the oxide powder (Col. 1, lines 5-10), wherein the sum of contents of Li, Na and K in the oxide powder is less than 500 ppm by mass (i.e., 0.0 % by mass), based on the mass of the whole oxide powder (Col. 8, lines 24-33).
Regarding claim 7 : The disclosure of ‘857 in view of ‘655 is adequately set forth in paragraph 11 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘857 in view of ‘655 does not expressly teach a method for producing the oxide powder, comprising: a step of mixing a Ca compound having a specific surface area of 2 m2/g or more, an Al compound having a specific surface area of 2 m2/g or more and SiO2 to obtain a mixture; and a step of heating the mixture at 1,000 to 1,300°C.
However, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since person skilled in the art could easily conceive of using a raw material having a high specific surface area so as to accelerate the chemical reaction and to thus manufacture the product efficiently as further evidence by ’222 (Page 2/16, Abstract, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 8: The disclosure of ‘857 in view of ‘655 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘857 discloses a resin composition comprising the oxide powder and a resin (Col. 5, lines 65-68 to Col., 6, lines 102; Col. 14, lines 63-65, Claim 6).
Regarding claim 9 : The disclosure of ‘857 in view of ‘655 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘857 in view of ‘655 teaches the amount of oxide powder contained in the resin composition merely falls within an optimum range a person skilled in the art could determine, as appropriate, according to an intended physical property (Col. 8, lines 5-10, see Examples 4-5, 7-8, Table I).
12. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US Pat. No. 5,096,857, hereinafter “’857”) in view of Chi-Tang Li (US Pat. No. 4,073,655, hereinafter “’655”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen-Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0123739 A1, hereinafter “’739”).
Regarding claim 10 : The disclosure of ‘857 in view of ‘655 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘857 teaches the stabilized cristobalite powders are intended primarily for use as fillers in glass composite low-K dielectric systems. They may also be useful in high-temperature structural ceramic or refractory applications where their smooth thermal expansion and thermal stability to >1400° C are important. Fillers for low-K dielectric applications require low dielectric constants, good chemical durability, and good sintering properties and stability in combination with a variety of glasses.‘857 in view of ‘655 does not expressly teach the resin is a resin composition for high frequency substrate.
However, ‘739 teaches the composite material having dielectric constant, dissipation factor, and coefficient of thermal expansion are suitable for application in a printed circuit board, especially for high frequency substrate (Page 1, [0009]). Therefore, using resin compositions comprising silica-based powders as fillers and having low dielectric constants for high-frequency substrates is a well-known technique as disclosed by ‘739.
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since choosing an appropriate a resin composition of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the level ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Examiner Information
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
1/27/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov